Bottom LineThe Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund,
Toxics, Risk, and Waste Management held a hearing regarding general
concern over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
management of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL).
The NPL compiles the nation's most heavily contaminated sites. In
the last year, EPA has removed 28 sites from the NPL, which has ultimately
slowed the pace of the Superfund cleanup projects. Superfund faces
additional problems due to the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2003 budget that
would fund 40, rather than 65, NPL sites. The Bush Administration
did not reauthorize the corporate Superfund tax that aids cleanups projects.
The needed $700 million for FY 2002 will come out of the general treasury.

Hearing SummarySen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) began the hearing with an opening statement
expressing her great disappointment with the apparent direction of the
Superfund program. She stated that the states containing the most
Superfund sites were New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania and New York.
She continued by stating that 40% of all Californians live within four
miles of a Superfund site. Boxer questioned the steep decline of
projects within the Superfund program as a result of the current management.
Boxer also expressed concern over the changing proportion of polluter-funded
cleanups versus taxpayer cleanups. Industry funded 82% of cleanup
projects in FY 1995 but is estimated to fund only 46% in FY 2003.

Marianne Horinko, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, expressed the administration's commitment to Superfund.
Horinko reported that 75% of nonfederal sites on the NPL were completed
and 20% completion of federal facility sites. In addition, fewer
sites were targeted due to the size and complexity for the remaining "megasites,"
producing a more time-consuming process. Horinko said that the administration
may reconsider the Superfund tax. Boxer asked how this commitment
translates into reality considering the current budget and site cleanup
numbers under consideration for 2002/2003. Boxer quoted John
Adams by saying that "facts are stubborn things." She questioned
whether President Bush was looking at reinstating the Superfund tax based
on recent administration decisions regarding Superfund. Boxer also
stated that her staff has had great difficulty getting information regarding
these issues due to an apparent hiding of information. Horinko responded
by saying, she would "be pleased to follow-up with additional information."
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) testified before the committee saying, "the Bush
Administration's decision to not reauthorize the corporate polluter's tax
shifts the burden of clean up of these hazardous waste sites to the taxpayer."

Boxer presented the committee with an internal EPA email that requested
EPA employees to deny any NPL modifications and redirect their questions
to the EPA Communications Department. Specifically, the email stated:
" Marianne Horinko has asked me to contact each of you to request that
if questioned about which Superfund sites will not be funded for cleanup,
that such decisions are premature at this time; that no formal list of
such sites exist; and that any questions directed to you regarding these
site should be referred to Joe Martyak. . . . We are working on a desk
statement to more fully address these issue that we will get to you as
soon as possible." Horinko responded to the email by saying that
it is EPA policy not to publicize Superfund sites for enforcement reasons.
If industry catches word of lack of federal funding, the pressure to fund
cleanup projects is gone. Boxer stated that it is the people's right
to know if a Superfund site in their community will not be cleaned up.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) asked Horinko about the progress
of the Hudson River cleanup and the recent General Electric (GE) offer
to fund the cleanup. Horinko stated that she could not give any detailed
information about the GE offer at this time. Clinton expressed appreciation
on the EPA's
Air Quality Task Force for Manhattan. Clinton stated that it
has been difficult to continue the process due to funding. She asked
if Horinko could define the difference between testing homes in Manhattan
compared to federal building like the Senate Hart office building.
Horinko stated that the EPA needs to secure funding for these additional
tasks.

Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) stated the EPA should be aggressively pursuing
the potentially responsible party (PRP) polluter pays program. He
added that the remaining cleanup sites are the most difficult to deal with
and will require additional support. He also expressed his support
of the corporate Superfund tax. Corzine stated: "The idea of cutting
back on the number of cleanups is outside the realm of the imaginable."

The subcommittee also heard from a panel of interest groups commenting
on EPA Superfund management. The panel consisted of Norma Lopez-Reid,
council member for the city of Montebello, California; Robert Spiegel,
Edison
Wetlands Association; Grant Cope, U.S. Public Interest Research Group;
Michael Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
(representing the Superfund Settlements Projects); and Kenneth Cornell,
AIG
Environmental. The panelists reported on EPA accomplishments
and suggestions for improvement of the Superfund program. Written
testimony of this hearing is available from the Environmental
and Public Work Committee.

Bottom LineSubcommittee Chair, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Ranking Member Harry
Reid (D-NV) have worked to build bipartisan support for a Brownfields bill
that clarifies "finality" for redevelopers and encourages the development
of "lightly contaminated" sites. The hearing marked Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's congressional
debut in her new position. Based on this hearing and the bipartisan
support for S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration
Act of 2001, it seems likely that a stand-alone Brownfields bill will be
passed during this Congress.

Hearing SummaryThe well attended hearing began with opening statement by members of
the Subcommittee. Chairman Chafee provided a brief background of
S.
350 -- which was introduced in the last Congress but died due to closed-door
bargaining -- that has over 60 cosponsors. Chafee stated in his opening
remarks: "This landmark, bipartisan bill which is pro-environment and pro-economic
development has attracted broad support from Senators and stake holder
groups." The text of several of the opening statement, including
Chafee's, along with the written testimony of the witnesses are available
at the EPW's website for this
subcommittee hearing.

EPA Administrator Whitman testified
first, saying that the Administration supports S.
350 and would like to "offer refinements that would be consistent with
the President's principles and budget." She continued by listing
several actions that could be incorporated into the legislation to strengthen
the flexibility for state and local government cleanups while "ensuring
those cleanups are protective of human health and environment." Two
other additions that Whitman and the Administration endorsed were federal
supported "research and development efforts on cleanup technologies and
techniques to clean up Brownfields" and a permanent Brownfields tax incentives
-- a provision that is not under the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee.
The question and answer period after Whitman's testimony focused on the
federal "safety net" that would allow EPA to assume command of a state
of local remediation plan that does not meet standards and "finality" that
clarifies liability for Brownfields property owners, redeveloper, and prospective
purchasers from future findings regarding contamination and cleanup.

The second panel of witnesses contained two mayors -- J. Christian Bollwage
from Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Myrtle Walker from East Palo Alto, California
-- and a representative from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services, Dr. Phil O'Brien. Bollwage testified on behalf of the United
States Conference of Mayors that strongly supports the legislation
and drew from Recycling
America's Land: A National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment.
Two key findings of this report are that 210 cities estimated they had
more than 21,000 Brownfields sites that cover more than 81,000 acres of
land and that Brownfields are not only a big city problem -- many Brownfields
sites are in cities with less than 100,000 people. Walker testified
on behalf of the National Association of
Local Government Environmental Professionals that also strongly supports
S. 350 and drew from Building a Brownfields Partnership from the Ground
Up: Local Government Views on the Value and Promise of National Brownfields
Initiatives. O'Brien provided comments on the effects of Brownfields
in rural and suburban areas. He opened his testimony by saying that
undeveloped Brownfields cause economic stress to smaller towns -- :it can
mean local economic disaster." The remainder of the panel discussion
focused on how local and state governments could use the S. 350 legislation
to support Brownfields redevelopment.

The third panel consisted of several interest groups: Mike Ford
on behalf of the National Association
of Realtors, Alan Front form The Trust
for Public Lands, John Arlington from the American
Insurance Association, Robert Fox from Manko,
Gold & Katcher LLP, Grant Cope from U.S.
PIRG, and Deeohn Ferris from the Global Environmental Resources Inc.
Panelists overall supported the legislation but some noted concern about
effectiveness of cleanup when standards vary from state to state.
Several of the panelists pointed out what they saw as specific limitations
in the legislation. S. 350 is expected to pass out of EPW, most likely
with amendments, and be placed on the Senate calendar for floor debate.

-- M.A.B

House Committee on Energy and CommerceSubcommittee on Environment and Hazardous MaterialsHearing on A Smarter Partnership: Removing Barriers to Brownfields
CleanupsMarch 7, 2001

Bottom LineOpening statements from Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gillmor (R-OH),
Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and full committee Chairman Billy
Tauzin (R-LA) set Brownfields cleanups as an environmental and economic
priority. Despite strong bipartisan support for Brownfields legislation,
the exact details of the bill still need to be ironed out. Important
issues include the role of State and Federal governments in funding and
management, the risk to public health versus the cleanup value, and the
liability to private and public entities that are involved with reclamation
work. At this hearing, testimony was received from state and local
organizations and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

Hearing SummaryTwelve members of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee
made opening statements demonstrating the great interest in this topic.
Comments addressed Brownfields successes and failures, and generally acknowledged
the need to reform the current policies at the federal level. Liability,
tax credits, and environmental concerns were most commonly mentioned.

Governor Minner opened her testimony by stating that Brownfields legislation
should be a priority for this Congress. She went on to discuss the
economic potential of Brownfields cleanups including new jobs, environmentally
healthy neighborhoods, increased tax revenues, and less suburban expansion.
She highlighted programs in Delware and other states that have successfully
reclaimed thousands of sites through state remediation incentives and reforms.
Liability under the federal Superfund law and finality for state-approved
Brownfields cleanups (including indemnity for land owners and developers
from post-cleanup EPA action) are of great concern to the Governors Association.
Also, the NGA recommends three Superfund-related provisions be included
in any Brownfields bill: governor concurrence before sites are added
to the National Priority List, a clarification of matching state funds
required for cleanup actions, and a waiver of the CERCLA
immunity clause for federal facilities. Online is Governor
Minner's full testimony.

On the second panel, Mr.
Meyer echoed much of what was stated by Governor Minner including that
states should have a larger role in designing a Brownfields cleanup model,
better grant administration to the states, finality to cleanups, and a
better method of getting local input. Mr.
Shinn emphasized that Brownfields redevelopments are not limited to
large cities. Finally, Mr.
Cope mentioned concerns about the safety and speed at which redevelopment
occurs, improvements in the federal safety net for public health, and the
exclusion of heavily contaminated sites from the Brownfields program.
Further, his testimony identifies public awareness as an important component
of any cleanup program.

Administrator Whitman described the EPA's approach to Brownfields as
needing "flexibility when working with States and local communities."
She testified that the states in conjunction with local communities should
continue to play the primary role in cleanup efforts. Further, she made
the point that Brownfields legislation should be kept independent of Superfund
reforms. In her written
testimony, Whitman outlined President Bush's guiding principles for
Brownfields program, which are generally in line with points raised by
the committee members and other witnesses.

--C.L.E.

House Committee on Transportation and
InfrastructureSubcommittee on Water Resources and EnvironmentHearing on Brownfields: Lessons from the FieldMarch 15, 2001

Bottom LineTestimony was heard from six city and county officials to discover
what works and what does not in Brownfields reclamation work. Undoubtedly,
strong partnerships between the local, state, and federal governments are
important. Still debatable is to what extent the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) should oversee remediation, and who should have legal "finality."

Hearing SummaryBrownfields are defined as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial
and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination. There are over
500,000 of these properties in the United States, but only a limited market
demand for them. Liability issues, cleanup funding, and the need
for environmental property assessments are reasons cited for the low demand.
Brownfields programs at the federal level are currently tied to CERCLA
(more commonly known as Superfund), which many consider to be overly restrictive
and ineffective for Brownfields cleanup.

Representatives from the cities of Chicago, IL; Wichita, KS; Chattanooga,
TN; Worcester, MA; and Charlotte, NC, discussed Brownfields redevelopment
in their respective communities (complete
witness testimony). Important issues addressed by their cleanup
programs include tax revenues lost when industry leaves a neighborhood,
development of new industrial sites for economic opportunities, creating
new job opportunities, and dealing with environmental problems associated
with contaminated or vacant properties.

All of the witnesses agree that the federal government needs to expand
its role in reclamation. Financially cities would like to see more
support from the federal government for site assessments, jump-start programs,
and subsidies for absent shares. More important perhaps, is legislation
that would give states and cities the responsibility and authority to grant
protection to "innocent purchasers and prospective landowners." A
concern for several witnesses is that the EPA still maintains final oversight
authority. Mr. Jack Brown, the Environmental Health Director for
the City of Wichita, also mentioned the need for the EPA to recognize more
realistic risk assessments and cleanup goals.

--C.L.E.

House Committee on Energy and CommerceSubcommittee on Environment and Hazardous MaterialsBrownfields LegislationJune 28, 2001

Bottom LineOn June 28, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials held a hearing to review federal Brownfields legislation.
Reviewed were S.350,
the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,
and two discussion drafts of potential legislation: one by subcommittee
chairman Paul Gillmor (R-OH) and the other by Democrats. Proponents
of the Gillmor draft feel that finality should be given to state and local
governments, and those in favor of the Democratic draft feel the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) authority should not be overly compromised. Also
up for debate are provisions that would expand the Brownfields classification
to include contaminated sites that may currently be covered under Superfund
regulations; require minimum standards in local cleanup programs; and eliminate
the need for the EPA's clean-up permits under certain conditions.
All three bills contain a $200 million annual grant allocation for site
assessment and remediation. Additionally, each of the bills helps
to clarify liability issues for potential developers and innocent landowners.

As at previous hearings, the EPA voiced its concern about giving final
remediation authority to the states. This position does not preclude
the states and local governments from having the primary clean-up role,
as long as the federal government is allowed the final say. Fisher's
written testimony made this important point, noting that the EPA has never
"stepped in on its own at a Brownfields site." Further, he said that
the Brownfields program should be separate from Superfund, that new federal
funding should be made available for additional Brownfields research and
development efforts, and that the Brownfields grant program should be streamlined
to expedite the funding process.

On the second panel, Christian Bollwage listed the three most important
issues to state and local governments as "funding, liability relief, and
the federal/state relationship." Additionally, this panel's members
stressed the importance of bipartisan support to pass Brownfields legislation
as soon as possible. Getting the money flowing is clearly a top priority
for state and local governments. Unfortunately, there are still important
details to be worked out between the Republicans and Democrats. The
witnesses'
full testimony can be found online.

The Sierra Club, represented by Mr. Hopkins, is in favor of S.
350 and strongly opposes the Gillmor draft. One of its major
contentions is that the Republican draft would remove the authority of
the federal government to "protect public health and the environment."
Further, they are concerned the bill would not ensure that minimum standards
are being met by state clean up programs. Witnesses representing
industrial properties, realtors, and other developers show a generally
favorable response to all three Brownfields bills. Liability is important
to all parties, especially the NAIOP. For specific details refer
to the written
testimony.